Gun Control is ridiculous

[Lonewulf]

You think that music should be free?

I don't agree with how the record companies deal with music, and I buy the albums of my favorite bands. Oh! Darn! If I download music online, I MUST be for the free distribution of music even when I'm not!

Huh? They are removing harmful fat and you argue that they are treating citizens like children?

So you're saying that I can't have a choice to eat fatty foods? Wow, now I know how people like you think.

I'd go through the rest of your argument, but I'd rather chew on glass.

 

[CFLarsen]

In that particular case, it went through the protective gear, genius. Using Baron's argument and anecdotal claims, that means that protective gear doesn't do anything at all.

No, that's not what Baron's argument was.

I don't agree with how the record companies deal with music, and I buy the albums of my favorite bands. Oh! Darn! If I download music online, I MUST be for the free distribution of music even when I'm not!

Incredible. You really are incapable of following the simplest debate.

I asked you what laws you thought were unfair or tyrannical, and hence had broken, and you said you had downloaded music illegally.

If you don't think music should be free, why did you give the example? It is completely irrelevant to the question I was asking.

If the ban on marijuana really is the only thing you can think of as being unfair or tyrannical, then you can't really complain about how bad the government is, can you?

So you're saying that I can't have a choice to eat fatty foods? Wow, now I know how people like you think.

Before you start painting "people like" me as bad guys, do a modicum of research first.

No, you can eat fatty foods. Your statement proves that you clearly haven't done any research into this. If you had, you would know that they are banning high trans fat.

I'd go through the rest of your argument, but I'd rather chew on glass.

That's OK. If you can't counter my arguments, perhaps you can answer the questions:

Are you saying that many many many people shoot other people under the radar of the law?

Do you have any idea how many ways you can die from a relatively minor wound?

Do you recognize that it is quite possible to repeal any part of the constitution?

Do you acknowledge that I said they could repeal any part of the constitution, yes or no?

 

[Lonewulf]

No, that's not what Baron's argument was.

Hm?

I'm sorry, but a single anecdotal case of a bullet running up someone's leg from bouncing off their kneecap isn't comparable to me claiming that a fencing sword is dangerous because it penetrates the opponent's outfit (made for protection) and severing his artery?

How?

Incredible. You really are incapable of following the simplest debate.

If the ban on marijuana really is the only thing you can think of as being unfair or tyrannical, then you can't really complain about how bad the government is, can you?

Wow. You claim that I'm not capable of following the simplest debate, and yet here you are, assuming that I think that the government is all bad. I don't think that it is bad. I think that your proposed amendment is bad. Keep up, would you?

Before you start painting "people like" me as bad guys, do a modicum of research first.

No, you can eat fatty foods. Your statement proves that you clearly haven't done any research into this. If you had, you would know that they are banning high trans fat.

...And that still treats people like children. It does not refute my argument, genius.

That's OK. If you can't counter my arguments, perhaps you can answer the questions:

I can counter your arguments. But I wouldn't want to argue with the crazed hobo on my street, so there's some people online that, quite frankly, I do not want to argue with as it's just a waste of time. Considering many of your previous posts and your astounding slippery grasp of logic, I'm pondering ignoring your posts altogether. If I was wise, I would have.

Are you saying that many many many people shoot other people under the radar of the law?

What do you mean by this question?

Do you have any idea how many ways you can die from a relatively minor wound?

Of course I do. But you can get relatively minor wounds operating heavy machinery, driving a vehicle, or stabbing yourself with a knife (yes, it happens). You can also get relatively minor wounds fighting in the SCA (Yes, it's happened, though rarely). Quite frankly, I'm not scared by the few times someone has injured themself with a firearm. The ability to injure yourself was a major one of the arguments used here.

Do you recognize that it is quite possible to repeal any part of the constitution?

Do you still beat your wife? This is one of those questions.

Yes, it's possible. But it's VERY VERY improbable to appeal any of the Bill of Rights without there being a major shitstorm.

Do you acknowledge that I said they could repeal any part of the constitution, yes or no?

They could. But they shouldn't repeal any of the Bill of Rights. Period. Because at that point, we open the door to tyranny, and set a very nasty precedent. Period.

 

[baron]

What about the scores of bad guys that get hit with one little round and fall over dead as a doornail as soon as they get hit?

Okay, so you're saying that if you get shot by any bullet in any situation you're in serious trouble. Okay! So you say that the CDC was wrong in their estimation of 65% of people getting treated and leaving (the equivalent of a few stitches), then?

So 35% of people being shot either dying or being seriously injured is a good risk in your view?

So the plural of anecdote equals data if you're for Gun Control? Is that how it works?

Conversely, for gun proponents, the plural of absolutely no evidence whatsoever is... absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

The first two wounds were skull wounds, and obviously hit the soft part of the skull.

Obviously. I hate my wibbly wobbly skull sometimes, stuff is always getting poked through into my brain.

There was one case where a woman was shot in the back of the skull with a .22 pistol five times, and came out of it with no serious injury, because it hit the harder part of the skull.

I'll let you answer yourself...

So the plural of anecdote equals data...?

If I cut your jugular with a knife, it's deadly. No ****, sherlock.

From your own CDC stats http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5307a1.htm#tab7

We see that the fatality rate for assault by firearm is 4.1:12.4 = 25%

Fatality rates for knife / sharp weapon assault is 0.7:48.7 = 1.4%

There was a case in fencing where two men were fencing. One broke his rapier on the other fencer, where it ended up ended up going through the fencing outfit, cutting his armpit, and causing the man to bleed quickly as it severed an artery.

Therefore, we should ban fencing equipment and the fencing activity. Right?

These guys were fencing in the street? Very dangerous, it should be illegal.

Oh, it is? You mean they were fighting in a private sporting establishment, protected by specialist gear, and an accident occurred? OK, so... what's the relevance?

 

[CFLarsen]

Hm?

I'm sorry, but a single anecdotal case of a bullet running up someone's leg from bouncing off their kneecap isn't comparable to me claiming that a fencing sword is dangerous because it penetrates the opponent's outfit (made for protection) and severing his artery?

How?

Where is the protective gear in Baron's example?

Wow. You claim that I'm not capable of following the simplest debate, and yet here you are, assuming that I think that the government is all bad. I don't think that it is bad. I think that your proposed amendment is bad. Keep up, would you?

Here you go again, not understanding what I said. I didn't say you think government is all bad.

...And that still treats people like children. It does not refute my argument, genius.

Do you think people are always responsible beings?

I can counter your arguments. But I wouldn't want to argue with the crazed hobo on my street, so there's some people online that, quite frankly, I do not want to argue with as it's just a waste of time. Considering many of your previous posts and your astounding slippery grasp of logic, I'm pondering ignoring your posts altogether. If I was wise, I would have.

I can think of another reason why you want to ignore my posts altogether.

What do you mean by this question?

I asked you a question. Don't you understand the question? Scroll back to see the context.

It hasn't been all that long, and you can't remember? Sheesh....

Of course I do. But you can get relatively minor wounds operating heavy machinery, driving a vehicle, or stabbing yourself with a knife (yes, it happens). You can also get relatively minor wounds fighting in the SCA (Yes, it's happened, though rarely). Quite frankly, I'm not scared by the few times someone has injured themself with a firearm. The ability to injure yourself was a major one of the arguments used here.

So, you don't think that something is more dangerous than other things? Things are equally dangerous?

Do you still beat your wife? This is one of those questions.

Yes, it's possible.

Thank you.

That took a while....

But it's VERY VERY improbable to appeal any of the Bill of Rights without there being a major shitstorm.

That's beside the point.

They could. But they shouldn't repeal any of the Bill of Rights. Period. Because at that point, we open the door to tyranny, and set a very nasty precedent. Period.

Do you acknowledge that I said they could repeal any part of the constitution, yes or no?

See how you fail to understand what I and others say? You do it over and over again.

 

[Lonewulf]

Where is the protective gear in Baron's example?

...



Yes or no: A broken fencing rapier can go through even the protection gear?

Because it did. Going by anecdotal evidence, it can happen. Going by Baron's argument, we should then ban rapiers.

For someone that keeps talking about how I can't understand an argument or forget arguments, you certainly didn't understand the point of my example.

Let me spell it out for the mentally challenged:

Baron: Listen to these three anecdotes, and then hear my claim about how any gunshot wound is immediately dangerous from these three examples. This is a small argument in a much larger argument that we should ban all firearms.

Me: Listen to this case of a broken rapier that ended up penetrating the protective vest that a fencer uses. It ended up severing his artery. It's anecdotal, but going by this, any fencing wound is thus always dangerous. Therefore, we should ban rapiers and rapier fighting.

What the **** does a protective vest have to do with this? An injury happened, WITH the vest. If a gunshot penetrated a protective vest, you would be then saying how even a protective vest is no measure against a gunshot, even if it was a rare example.

What, so if we distribute bullet-proof cups to people to protect their scrotum, you'd be okay with firearms being freely distributed?

Yeah, it's ignore time. I don't have time for crazy hobos.

 

[burnvictim77]

You don't uphold the law in your home?

Do you make a living by misinterpretting people's posts on the internet?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, it's ignore time.

I can understand why.

 

[baron]

...
Baron: Listen to these three anecdotes, and then hear my claim about how any gunshot wound is immediately dangerous from these three examples. This is a small argument in a much larger argument that we should ban all firearms.

Me: Listen to this case of a broken rapier that ended up penetrating the protective vest that a fencer uses. It ended up severing his artery. It's anecdotal, but going by this, any fencing wound is thus always dangerous. Therefore, we should ban rapiers and rapier fighting.

This is a desparate, swan-song of an argument, which I shall show up for what it is before leaving this thread.

Firstly, a correction: only one of my three examples was an anecdote.

Secondly, your analogy, as I already explained, is completely irrelevant. You are comparing the sport (I repeat, sport) of fencing with guns in the public domain.

1. Two expert sportsmen agree to meet in a controlled, private environment to practice fencing and an accident occurs.

2. A guy is shot in the street by a maniac

As if that isn't enough, let's examine your "anecdote". This guy who died from fencing. From this source-referenced article about fencing, which I trust far more than your anecdote, it says there has been one single death from fencing in the US in the entire history of the sport, and that was in 1892.

In the United States there has been but a single death caused by a fencing accident. The mishap took place more than a century ago, in 1892, and was caused by a failure of the victim's mask.

In other words, that actual ratio of fencing deaths to gunshot deaths would, I estimate, be around 1:10,000,000.

I don't think there's a need to examine other factors that make your analogy utterly ridiculous, such as comparing an accident with a deliberate act.

I'm really struggling to see how your mind works.

I'm giving up on this thread. At least 10 times I've asked for feedback on the multiple instances of stats I posted. Nobody has been willing or able to even attempt to do so.

If this was a duel, you wouldn't have had time to even think of drawing your pistol before being gunned down.

Happy shootin', y'all

 

[volatile]

I just found an article from the Star Tribune in Minnesota, and it's prompted me to resurrect this thread as the Minnesota experience after introducing concealed carry laws seems to have something interesting to say on the topics we were discussing, on both sides of the debate.

Most pertinently:

- "Tens of thousands more Minnesotans licensed to carry handguns in public haven't turned the state into the Wild West shootout that gun-control advocates warned of. But they also have not done much to curb violent crime, a benefit that many gun-rights proponents predicted when the state's permitting law was liberalized."

- "Between 2002, the year before the law was changed, and 2005, the most recent year for which state figures are available, Minnesota's <b>violent crime rose 13 percent</b>." - Suggesting no deterrent effect.

- "174 crimes committed by permit holders" - "Law abiding citizens" can abuse their guns in a criminal fashion, and one of them even murdered a bouncer in a nightclub.

- There was only ONE lawful use of a legally carried weapon in the whole period - guns aren't preventing crimes or killing bad guys

- Nevertheless, guns are hurting Minnesotans more and more. "In the five years before that, such casualties averaged 172 a year in Minnesota. In the next three years, the average was 327, capped by a record 395 in 2005."


Your thoughts, gentlemen?

 

[Ranb]

I thought it was interesting that the article said no Minnesota permit holder has ever been convicted of robbery, their likelihood of committing an assault is about 17 times less, 12 times less for drunken driving and 31 times less for drug crimes, as compared to the general population.

Ranb

 

[shanek]

- "Between 2002, the year before the law was changed, and 2005, the most recent year for which state figures are available, Minnesota's <b>violent crime rose 13 percent</b>." - Suggesting no deterrent effect.

Actually, what was mentioned in the article was that there were demographic factors accounting for the rise. You can't say "no deterrent effect" without a proper regression analysis accounting for this and other factors.

- "174 crimes committed by permit holders" - "Law abiding citizens" can abuse their guns in a criminal fashion, and one of them even murdered a bouncer in a nightclub.

What you didn't mention: "The 174 crimes committed by permit holders, according to a recent state report, represent only a tiny fraction of the surge, which experts say owes more to demographic trends and gangs.

"Only 23 of the crimes by permit holders involved a pistol."

- There was only ONE lawful use of a legally carried weapon in the whole period - guns aren't preventing crimes or killing bad guys

You can't say that about preventing crimes--most cases of defensive gun use involve simply showing the would-be perpetrator the gun, scaring him away. That wouldn't get registered in any statistics, and the gun isn't actually used.

- Nevertheless, guns are hurting Minnesotans more and more. "In the five years before that, such casualties averaged 172 a year in Minnesota. In the next three years, the average was 327, capped by a record 395 in 2005."

Again, you don't mention the demographic changes that account for this.

Some other parts you don't mention:

"Violent crime tracks with the numbers of males 18 to 26. We're having a bump in that group at this time."

"One percent of adult Minnesotans now have permits. Olson speculated that criminal behavior might be affected once 2 percent are licensed." So there aren't enough permit holders yet to expect a change in the statistics one way or the other.

"No Minnesota permit holder has ever been convicted of robbery. And a Star Tribune comparison of overall crime statistics and state reports of convictions of permit holders indicates that their likelihood of committing an assault is about 17 times less than the general population's, 12 times less for drunken driving and 31 times less for drug crimes."

Selective much?

 

[shecky]

I've yet to see convincing strong correlations between gun proliferation and
gun violence in the US. The best analysis seems to indicate little, if any, effect, once contributing factors are considered, making it a difficult case for pro or anti gun advocates.

I personally, dislike marrying gun rights to some nebulous result on violence rates. The available data is too vague and open to interpretation. I tend to think that rights should be rights more on principle than practicality.

 

[CFLarsen]

You can't say that about preventing crimes--most cases of defensive gun use involve simply showing the would-be perpetrator the gun, scaring him away. That wouldn't get registered in any statistics, and the gun isn't actually used.

If these cases aren't registered in any statistics, how come you know that defensive gun uses involve simply showing the gun?

"One percent of adult Minnesotans now have permits. Olson speculated that criminal behavior might be affected once 2 percent are licensed." So there aren't enough permit holders yet to expect a change in the statistics one way or the other.

That is an argument against carry permits, not in favor of: Minnesota has about 5 million people, so only 30,000 more people got a permit.

That's a remarkably low number. And when you take this into account:

"No Minnesota permit holder has ever been convicted of robbery.

Why have the law at all, then? Clearly, they don't need it to "protect" themselves.

And a Star Tribune comparison of overall crime statistics and state reports of convictions of permit holders indicates that their likelihood of committing an assault is about 17 times less than the general population's, 12 times less for drunken driving and 31 times less for drug crimes."

Selective much?

So....the general population shouldn't be allowed to carry guns?

 

[Ranb]

So....the general population shouldn't be allowed to carry guns?

I think the point is that you should have much less to fear from the gun carrying public than the rest of the general population.

Ranb

 

[CFLarsen]

I think the point is that you should have much less to fear from the gun carrying public than the rest of the general population.

Ranb

It's concealed guns. How do you know which persons to fear less?

 

[Ranb]

It's concealed guns. How do you know which persons to fear less?

I tend not to base my character judgments on whether or not a person may be carrying a concealed weapon.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

If these cases aren't registered in any statistics, how come you know that defensive gun uses involve simply showing the gun?

Why have the law at all, then? Clearly, they don't need it to "protect" themselves......

We know that some people use guns for defense by brandishing because they say so. They can't all be liars can they?

A person who carries may have the gun to defend himself from a robber, not be one. You are trying to make a joke here right?

Ranb

 

[CFLarsen]

I tend not to base my character judgments on whether or not a person may be carrying a concealed weapon.

It isn't a question of character judgments. It's a question of how you determine which persons carry a gun or not.

How do you do that?

We know that some people use guns for defense by brandishing because they say so. They can't all be liars can they?

That's the John Mack argument:

"We know that some people have been abducted because they say so. They can't all be liars can they?"

A person who carries may have the gun to defend himself from a robber, not be one. You are trying to make a joke here right?

Clearly, there is no valid reason to carry a gun to defend yourself from a robber.

 

[shanek]

We know that some people use guns for defense by brandishing because they say so. They can't all be liars can they?

Kleck's data, which Claus is perfectly familiar with, had many safeguards in place to weed out people who were lying or misremembering things.

A person who carries may have the gun to defend himself from a robber, not be one. You are trying to make a joke here right?

You have to remember, you're talking to someone who, as he himself said, would (attempt to)kill even an armed air marshal on an airplane.